Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/10/11 - MINUTES .y 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 11, 1989 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1989 - 1990 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 7 0 Gary Olsen X 7 0 Barbara Whitney X 7 0 Brent Hough X 3 4 Martha Edgmon X 7 0 Chris Mills X 7 0 Michael Dotson X 7 0 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos , Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes , Assistant City Attorney Frank Balistrieri , Deputy City Attorney Douglas Evans, Assistant Planning Director Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Dave Forcucci , Planner John Terell , Redevelopment Coordinator Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee - October 9, 1989 Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Tom Doczi William Johnson Will Kleindienst Reuel Young Mike Buccino Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Hough/Dotson) approving minutes of September 27, 1989 with the following correction: Indicate Chairman Lapham has attended 6 meetings , not "0" meetings. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The October 11, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday, October 6, 1989. October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 2 CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. M/S/C (Mills/Hough) taking the following actions: CASE 3.0452. Application by ROBERTSON-SMITH for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for retail/com- mercial/industrial complex on Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone, Section 19. Removed from the agenda pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 3.0552. Application by JOSEPH L. CRNCIC for architectural approval of revised elevations for single-family hillside residence on Ramon Road/Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the mechanical equipment be removed from the roof. 2. That split face block or concrete be used for building walls & landscape walls. 3. That the existing east wall be landscaped with ficus hedge or similar. Where hedge does not cover, wall must match building finish. CASE 3.0558. Application by MIKE GALLEGO for architectural approval of final working drawings for auto repair building on Oleander Road between Ramon Road/Camino Parocela, M-1 Zone, Section 19. Removed from the agenda pending receipt of revised plans. CASE 3.0605. Application by ALI NIKSEFAT for architectural approval of final detailed landscape plans for single-family hillside residence on the southeast corner of Ramon Road/Fern Canyon Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 22. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the plan indicate the existing palms. 2. That the sizes and numbers of trees be increased in the yards on Fern Canyon and on Ramon Road. i October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0669. Application by WENDELL VEITH for Joyce Chapman for architectural approval revised plans for 3-unit apartment complex on Camino Real between Cameo Way/La Verne Way, R-2 Zone, Section 26. Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the pool be relocated away from Unit 3 with a wall constructed between the two and subject to staff approval . 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. i CASE 3.0670. Application by BHASAKARARAO NALAM for architectural approval of single-family residence on Stevens Road between Via Monte Vista/Via Del Norte, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Approved subject to the following conditions: i 1. That the facia be revised to show more articulation subject to staff review. I 2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. 3. That the proposed chain link fence is not approved. CASE 3.0688 (MINOR) . Application by BRUZZI , INC. for architectural approval of exterior revisions to the Desert Fashion Plaza for a restaurant/bar on N. Palm Canyon, CBD Zone, Section 15. Restudy noting the following: 1. That the mechanical equipment need not be screened from above. 2. That the number of doors and windows be reduced giving attention to proportions and detail . 3. That the entry be articulated, need better sense of entry. 4. That the canterra stone and stucco detail be restudied, columns need more massing. 5. That the window and door frames be a light color. 6. That the AAC review the effect of the reduced planter in the outdoor dining area/sidewalk. October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 4 CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 5.0516-CUP. Application by RANDY ROESCH for architectural approval of l.. revised elevations for a light maintenance/vehicle cleaning/administrative office building for Roesch Bus Lines on Research Drive between Computer Way/Farrell Drive, M-1-P Zone, Section 12. Removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. TTM 21885. Application by SANBORN/WEBB ENGINEERING for Cathedral Canyon Country Club for approval of an amended tract map for property located west of Cathedral Canyon Drive, south of the Whitewater River Channel , PD-86, Section 28. Approved subject to original conditions of approval . j I ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. i CASE 3.0477. Application by DAVID BLUM for architectural approval of landscape plans for Tony Romas Restaurant on Palm Canyon Drive between Ramon Road/Baristo Road, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Commissioner Dotson stated that the landscaping should be mounded or a wall and mounding designed. Planner (Evans) stated that the area is narrow and a berm 2 to 3 feet high will be steep and does not achieve the necessary screening; and that a 3.5 ft. berm would provide the screening but would be difficult to construct and maintain. Planning Director stated that 18 to 20 ft. is needed to construct a berm unless there is a retaining wall , which is not proposed for the project. Planner (Abbas) stated that there was no discussion at the AAC about a retaining wall . Planning Director in reply, to Commissioner Whitney's question stated that another solution would be shrubs or walls. Commissioner Mills suggested a two foot berm with shrubs on top and Commissioner Dotson asked about the possibility of using drought resistant plans . Planner (Evans) stated that there is an erosion problem which additional shrubs and ground cover impact further. October 11 , 1989 PC MINUTES Page 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued) CASE 3.0477. (Continued) Commissioner Mills suggested a swale in the back to keep water out of the parking lot. M/S/C (Mills/Dotson) approving the landscape plan subject to the following condition: That the berm on Palm Canyon be restudied. CASE 3.0681 (MINOR) . Application by PATRICK J. KELLY for architectural approval of an 8 ft. high chainlink fence around a vacant lot on Prescott Drive, R- 1-A Zone, Section 10. Planner (Evans) stated that the applicant has installed an 8 ft. high chain link fence on the frontage across two vacant lots to keep people from dumping on the property; that a subdivision map has been approved for the property but no construction has begun; that staff would not recommend a chain link fence which is prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance; and that the AAC felt oleanders could be added to screen the fence, but that staff does not feel the screen is appropriate. i Commissioner Olsen stated that when chain link fencing is added to property, trash accummulates in the fence and makes the area look worse. Commissioner Whitneyagreed and stated that oleanders Y 9 just compound the problem. Commissioner Dotson asked if a bollard and chain type of fence could be used. Planning Director stated that ballard and chain fencing could be used; that the applicant's fence is 8 ft. high; that if there were construction on the site the fencing could be allowed; that other materials could be used to make a fence 42 ft. high and also other materials considered such as boulders and rocks to keep people out. M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney) denying the 8 ft. chain link fence on Prescott Drive. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0522-PD-205 (Continued) . Application by BENCO DEVELOPMENT for a planned development district for a retail center with a corner pad for a restaurant and a center pad for a second restaurant with a drive-thru for property on the northwest corner of Sunrise Way/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. Planning Director stated that the application was discussed in the September 27 meeting and the motion divided into two parts - the planned development district and the drive-through; Commission approved the overall planned development district concept; that a separate motion on the drive- through was a tie vote (2-2) ; and therefore was returned to the Commission for more discussion. He stated that the reason for the PD is to allow some October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued) reduction in setback standards; that the applicant will meet Tahquitz setbacks; that staff recommended reduced parking in some areas for more landscaping at the entry rather than a parking lot appearance; that the Traffic Engineer feels two spaces back to the island will be sufficient; and that the small entry area can be redesigned. He stated that one letter had been received previously regarding property devaluation on Luring Drive and that another letter received this week stated that a fast-food restaurant is not an appropriate use on Tahquitz. He stated that the Council will be bringing up the issue at the Council and that the Commission should decide whether a drive-through is appropriate on Tahquitz. Chairman stated that the complex faces Sunrise rather than Tahquitz. Planning Director explained that there will be some visibility from Tahquitz; that the complex is on Tahquitz and that the adjoining area is vacant• and that the Council will discuss whether rdrive-through w e o not a i s appropriate anywhere on the corridor and also compatible with other developments on Tahquitz. Chairman stated that the drive-through is on Sunrise. In reply to Commissioner Edgmon's question, Planning Director stated that the parking area setback at the entrance on Sunrise will be sufficient at ... 50 ft. with the addition of two or three additional spaces (per Traffic Engineer) ; that staff's recommendation is for an aesthetic view on Sunrise and not the back of cars; that the area could be landscaped rather than hardscaped; and that the design needs some study before final approval . Commissioner Edgmon asked if removal of the two parking spaces would impact parking. Planning Director stated that the Commissioners could lower the standards if the Commission thought it resulted in an improvement to the project. Chairman stated that the planned development district has been approved by the Commission and the drive-through proposal and location only are to be discussed; and that the Council does not want a drive-through on Tahquitz. Commissioner Dotson stated that the issue of the appropriateness of drive- throughs in general is a concern and also the environmental impacts; and that he had concerns about allowing drive-throughs anywhere in the City. Commissioner Olsen stated that he would not have concerns about drive- throughs in the City provided they are not on Tahquitz and not in other sensitive areas, designed well , and are hidden from view; and that the applicant designed the project with sensitivity. He stated that the drive- through will not affect Tahquitz and could be moved to the northern portion of the property if that revision is open to discussion. October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued) Chairman declared the hearing open. Jim Reinmuth, representing Chris Mills, project architect, 121 S. Palm Canyon Drive, stated that there is adequate stacking at the drive-through window and that a three foot wall and landscaping is proposed in front of the drive-through so that it is screened from Sunrise. Ernest Noia, 429 E. Tahquitz, representing the Indian land owner, stated that his client is very hopeful that the drive-through will be approved because it is a economic necessity of the lease; that previous leases have been defaulted on, and have cost the property owner money; that the new group leasing the land was told that the project needed to be good to be easily processed; and is hidden; that the drive-through is really on Sunrise which will eliminate visibility from Tahquitz; that the project is designed to solve the financial problems of the Indian landowner and was also approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for that reason; that deletion of the drive-through would deprive the Indian of finances; that the Commission is encouraged to make the project work the best way that it can; that letters from the land owners could be sent to the City if necessary; and that he would be at the Council meeting to discuss the issue. Commissioner Dotson asked if the economic viability of the project is based on the drive-through. Mr. Noia replied that the economic value will p generate the loan necessary to pay a million dollars to his client by December 1 and that the payment will not be given to the client if the loan is not obtained; that the lease is very complicated; and that a major drive-through has be shown to obtain the loan . In reply to Commissioner Dotson's question, he stated that it is a possibility that the fast-food operator is requiring a drive-through rather than a walk-in restaurant. Chairman stated that a fast-food operator will pay more for the franchise if it is a drive-through rather than a walk-up because of the additional volume of business created by the drive-through. Commissioner Whitney asked about the name of the center. Planning Director replied that it is called the Tahquitz Square Center. Commissioner Whitney stated that it is highly visible; that the name says "Tahquitz"; and that it will be visible from Tahquitz. Planning Director stated that the signing for the restaurant will not be visible because it will be on Sunrise but the restaurant will be visible from Tahquitz. He stated that no specific fast-food operator has been named and no specific layout for the building has been submitted; that he hoped it does not change significantly; and that specific conditions should be set on the restaurant when it is reviewed. October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 8 j PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) i CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney suggested that the Commission see exactly what is being proposed because problems arise during development of projects which change the design; and that perhaps the Commission could design the project appropriately. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Olsen stated that the farther the drive-through is from Tahquitz the better and wondered why the drive-through is in the center of the project rather than at the corner. Frank Bennett, BENCO, the applicant, stated that the reason for the loca- tion is so that it is not on Tahquitz; that it is not on the north corner because of the residential development behind the gas company building; and that fast food operators have been told "no" to corner locations . Commissioner Edgmon stated that she appreciated both the applicant's and the property owner's views, but that she had concerns about a drive-through on either Sunrise or Tahquitz because the use is not appropriate on a highly visible corner and also on a corner so near the high school . Commissioner Olsen asked if the issue of location can remain open to explore the corner location because it would be no worse for the neighbors since they have to drive on Sunrise to get ,to the drive-through; and that the issue of location should be part of the motion. Planning Director explained that there is a problem with allowing flexibi- lity in the location because there is no site plan showing how the location at the corner would work; that the applicants could amend the planned development district later; that the Commission could indicate that the question of location is left open in either its proposed site or on the corner although a change in the location may cause problems with arrange- ments of the drive-through so the driver has access to the ordering booth which would have to be screened on both streets. He stated that he did not think the corner location would work. Chairman asked about flipping the building off Sunrise. Commissioner Olsen stated that the location should be left open and the drive-through moved farther away from Tahquitz. M/S/C (Hough/Olsen; Mills abstained) for approval of the drive-through as shown on the site plan subject to conditions. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Hough, Olsen, Lapham Noes: Whitney, Edgmon, Dotson Abstention: Mills October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0522-PD-205. (Continued) There was a tie vote; the motion failed; and the drive-through denied in its present location on the site plan. Planning Director stated that staff will send the application on to the Council for review stating that the Commission was split on the issue of the drive-through. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This case was considered by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Council at their meetings of September 25 and 26, 1989, respectively. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commis- sion and a review of the City Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 27, 1989, the Tribal Council took the following action at its j regularly scheduled meeting of October 10, 1989: 1. Reiterated its concurrence with the filing of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, and I 2. Approved the request for a Planned Development District (PD-205) sub- ject to the conditions outlined in Planning Staff report dated September 27, 1989. I The following Case was included on the City Planning Commission's Agenda of September 27, 1989. The Tribal Council did not act on the Case based on the understanding that the item was being continued, and that a Planning Staff report was not available. The City Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 27, 1989 indicated that the Case was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission. CASE 5.0524-CUP. Application by MOBIL OIL COMPANY for a conditional use permit to remove an existing station and construct a new self-serve gas station on the northeast corner of N. Palm Canyon Drive/Vista Chino, C-1 Zone, Section 3. Planner (Forcucci ) presented the staff report, and stated that the architecture and site plan were recommended for approval by the AAC. In reply to a question by Commissioner Olsen, he stated that the proposed building is 1,000 + square feet and the existing building is larger than that; that the canopy is approximately 140 ft. long; that no mini-mart is proposed although a small sales room for snacks is included in the plan; that the driveway on Vista Chino is proposed to be 40 ft. although the Traffic Engineer recommends 32 feet; that the Traffic Engineer recommends that the southerly driveway on Palm Canyon be deleted to eliminate left hand turns into the site; that the north driveway on Palm Canyon will remain; that mechanical equipment previously proposed on the roof will be moved to the ground and incorporated into the landscaping; that 2 to 22 ft. high walls are proposed; that the AAC recommended split face block or concrete for the building and landscape walls; that the sign program has been submitted but does not meet sign ordinance requirements and will be resubmitted separately for Commission review. He stated in reply to October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0524-CUP. (Continued) Commissioner Whitney that one AAC member dissented feeling that the site plan could be improved by moving the building back and placing the stations in tandem but that Mobil Oil representatives stated that several alternatives had already been tried on the less than one-half acre site. He stated that the canopy floats on top of the building and is 16 ft. high and 2 ft. in depth. i Jim Huntsberry, Mobil Oil Company, 3800 West Alameda , Burbank, explained that the company wants to remove a 30-year old station and replace it with a self-service state of the art facility; that the bays and their noise will be eliminated; that pumping capacity will be increased from 2 islands to 4 to serve 8 cars which will a be better service to the public and a more attractive facility; that all conditions of staff are acceptable except for the elimination of the drive on Palm Canyon nearest Vista Chino which is an important vehicular access; that the elimination of the drive and leaving only one exit will cause internal complications and stacking of cars on the street; that the one curb cut on Vista Chino is acceptable and will be made 32 ft. as recommended by the Traffic Engineer; and that both drives are needed on Palm Canyon or traffic hazards will be created both on and off site. In reply to Commissioner Mills; Mr. Huntsberry stated that the drive on Palm Canyon nearest Vista Chino is a major entrance to the facility. In reply to Commissioner Edgmon; he stated that the lights under the canopy have an extremely small amount of spillage because they are reflected down from the top of the canopy; that the fixtures are not visible except for down lighting at the entrances of the drives; and that the station is slightly different from the Mobil station at Vista Chino and Date Palm although they are both split faced block. There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. In reply to Chairman's question, Traffic Engineer stated that the basic concern is the driveway on Palm Canyon near Vista Chino because cars will not utilize the Vista Chino signal and will make a left turn on to Palm Canyon Drive which will result in accidents . Chairman stated that vehicles will exit on Palm Canyon and should not cause a bottleneck. Commissioner Olsen stated that he had bought gas from the station for years and had not had a problem with the exiting; and that in this particular situation the driveway proposed would be acceptable. Planning Director stated that the present configuration presents an oppor- tunity to make left turns and also there is no landscaping because of the driveway; that the aesthetics could be improved by closing the drive and landscaping the corner; and that the most northerly drive could be used to turn into the facility. Commissioner Mills stated that he agreed with the Chairman and Commissioner Olsen but if the major entrance is from the driveway on Palm Canyon near Vista Chino, cars near will exit and cause problems; that blocking the drive also created problems; that circulation is more important than landscaping; that there may be an alternative but it would not fit Mobil 's standard station i October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) j CASE 5.0524-CUP. (Continued) l design; that the architectural is excellent and appropriate for the use but does not fit the site because it is not in scale with the half acre site. He stated that since the station is downtown, the scale should be more appropriate. Commissioner Dotson agreed, stating that although service bays have been eliminated, the applicant has additional pump islands; that instead of 4, perhaps 3 islands could be used for more design flexibility; that the structure is sterile and should be more a commercial type of appearance than an industrial type; that the southerly drive on Palm Canyon will be a problem; that there is too much intensity on the site on an extremely visible corner; and that he had grave concerns about the proposal . Commissioner Edgmon commented that quality is a concern; and that the design is acceptable on a freeway but not at a major intersection on Palm Canyon Drive. M/S/C (Dotson/Edgmon; Hough dissented) for a restudy of the site plan and architecture noting Commission concerns as stated at the meeting. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS After consideration_ of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commis- sion, the Tribal Council took the following actions at its meeting of October 10, 1989: 1. Concurred with the findings outlined in Planning Staff report dated September 27, 1989. 2. Approved the granting of a Conditional Use Permit subject to the condition contained in staff report referred to above. CASE 6.370-VARIANCE / CASE 3.0668. Application by THOMAS E. STARR for a variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks for a single-family hillside residence at 2499 Southridge Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 25. (This item is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Planner (Forcucci ) gave the staff report and stated that a letter had been received in opposition from a neighbor who after investigation was really referring to another location; that the AAC recommends approval ; and that the Southridge Homeowners Association also approved the plans . Eli Birer, 2456 Madrona, stated that he was present to speak against the proposal for his client but that he felt that the client was concerned about another project at another location and that he would withdraw his client's opposition. Thomas Starr, 1126 Holyoke, the applicant, stated that the Southridge Homeowners Association approved the plans; that the house would be across from the Bob Hope residence; and that the Hopes have also approved the plans . October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.370-VARIANCE / CASE 3.0668. (Continued) There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed. Chairman stated that there are only 6,000 sq. ft. of buildable space on the site; that open space would require moving the house back to the lot line; that the proposal is better than bulldozing a pad on the hillside; that if the neighbors do not oppose the application, it should be approved. Commissioner Dotson asked the realistic buildable area of the lot. Assistant Planning Director stated that 6,000 sq. ft. is buildable space, and the proposed encroachments would increase the figure. Commissioner Dotson asked how the variance could be justified. Planner (Forcucci ) stated that the house is 3300 sq. ft. plus a patio and swimming pool leading up to a severe slope; and that altering the footprint would eliminate the recreation area. Commissioner Dotson stated that grading should not be done on the site; that there were constraints to the site when the applicant bought it; and that justification was eeded to allow the variance. Planner (Forcucci ) stated that the site is at the top of Southridge; that the Hope house is offset across the street; that there is -another house two doors away which has zero setbacks; and that staff feels that the design is a viable solution for the applicant. i Chairman stated that the house will have the appearance of a normal setback. M/S/C (Mills/Hough) approving Variance 6.370 and Case 3.0668 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions . Findings: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, specifically size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 2. That conditions of approval have been required which will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other prop- erties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 6.370-VARIANCE / CASE 3.0668. (Continued) 3. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and zone in which the subject property is situated. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. 5. That the Southridge Homeowners Association has reviewed and approved the preliminary house plans. Conditions: i 1. That the proposed development of the premises conform to all applic- able regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City codes, ordinances, and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. That final detailed landscaping, irrigation, fencing, and exterior lighting plans be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal . 3. That the roof color shall be an earthtone and subject to pre-approval by the Planning Commission. 4. That all conditions of the Development Committee be met. TTM 25010. Application by J.F. DAVIDSON for Paul Mitchell for a tentative tract map to convert an existing 72-unit apartment complex to condominiums at Golf Club Drive/E. Palm Canyon Drive, W-R-3 Zone, Section 29. (This item is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA guidelines. ) Planning Director stated that the application is a public hearing to con- sider the conversion of apartments into condos , and as part of the process there is a requirement that the developer send written notices to all tenants and give a 60-day period of time for responses before the City reviews the application; and that the 60-day period has not elapsed so the application is recommended for continuance to the December 13 meeting. Chairman declared the hearing open. i October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) TTM 25010. (Continued) Henry Colosi , 2700 Golf Club Drive, north of the project, stated that the neighbors support the project; that the project is the only apartment in the area around the golf course; that tenants of the apartments cause problems such as vandalism cars parked on Cree, and cars dumped on the golf course property. He asked whether or not Cree Road were in Palm Springs or Cathedral City. Planning Director stated that parts of Cree Road are in the City and part in the County because of an error by Cathedral City in the annexation line. Mr. Colosi stated that the road had been closed and there are drainage problems; and that the residents do not know what government agency to call . He asked if the road would be opened. Planning Director stated that he would check the status of the road and call Mr. Colosi . M/S/C (Whitney/Olsen; Mills/Dotson abstained) continuing the application to December 13. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jeff Eastman, 1047 Chino Canyon Road, stated that he was present to learn of the status of the Herrera house which will obscure his view when built. Planning Director stated that notification of adjacent property owners on hill- side developments as a courtesy has been effective; that the Herrera house was lowered in a Development Committee review; that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Weston, the owners of the house behind the Herrera house had not complained about the house plans except for the height after reviewing the plans; that the Weston/Eastman house had been lowered after Commission review so the Herrera house behind Weston/Eastman's house would not have a blocked view; that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Weston attended the AAC meeting of May 24 to express their views and were told to dis- cuss their problems with the Commission but the application was not heard because of the restudy; that they were not informed by staff when the house was rescheduled for Planning Commission review; that the roof peak which looks innocuous on the front elevation actually runs the length of the house and blocks Mr. Weston' s view; and that the City Attorney states that there is no ability for the City to mandate a change but that staff can work with the owner to lower the house somewhat more or change the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3.5:12 without structural changes; the owner of the Herrera house is the owner of the original house behind Weston/Eastman and complained about the Weston/Eastman house height; that the house is in plan check presently but no permits have been issued; and that the case has not been discussed with Mr. Herrera . He stated that the pitch could be reduced to 3.5:12 but that the house could be lowered on the site easier which might cause slight drainage problems and that the view side is east. Commissioner Mills suggested that conditions should be explained to the Herreras; and that the house would not suffer by lowering the west edge and keeping the same roof pitch. October 11,. 1989 PC MINUTES Page 15 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) Planning Director stated that Mr. Herrera will be contacted and told of the suggestions made by the Commission. Mr. Eastman stated that the applicant will have to clear the channel , bring in fill dirt, and build a two foot high retaining wall to comply. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted must be exercised within that time period unless extended. CASE 5.0421-PD-185. Application by DESERT HOSPITAL for architectural approval of helipad and emergency access locations for Desert Hospital expansion plan on property on N. Indian Avenue between Tachevah Drive/Paseo E1 Mirador, R-4 Zone, Section 11. (Item referred to Commission from City Council .) PlanningDirector stated that the hospital staff requested that the appli- cation p q Pp cation be removed from the agenda until alternatives have been discussed regarding the location of the helipad and emergency access. The application was removed from the agenda. i MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION. Request by PALM SPRINGS CHECK CASHING for a check cashing service at 1O63 N. Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 10. i Planning Director stated that the request had been forwarded to the North Project Area Committee (NPAC) which recommended against establishing a check cashing use in the NPAC (Gallery District) ; that the Commission should make a determination that check cashing is not an allowable use in the C-1 Zone or further discussion should be held on whether or not check cashing is an appropriate use in the City. He stated that there was a newspaper article recently stating that check cashing is used for money laundering (although not this applicant) ; that the police department was concerned about the use; that the use could possibly be placed in shopping centers or resort hotels where it would be self-policing. Planner (Forcucci ) stated that the applicant came to the NPAC meeting and saw that the committee was negative; that the applicant is a local resident; is not present; and the issue is probably a dead one. determining M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough)/that a check cashing service is not an allowable use in the C-1 Zone (Case 10.371) . October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions. No report was given because a joint City Council/Commission meeting was held on October 10. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS. Planning Commission Study Session. Planning Commission regular study session will be held on October 18 in the Large Conference Room, City Hall , 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. - Discussion of Neon Signs. Commissioner Olsen requested that neon signs be discussed in a future study session. Recycling Program. Commissioner Dotson requested information on the status of the City's recycling program. December 27 Planning Commission Meeting. Commission cancelled the December 27 meeting. Joint Study Session of October 10. Commissioners felt that not enough time was given to discussion. Planning Director stated that the study sessions often do not begin on time because of interference of other issues and that the joint study sessions with other Commissions is probably a good forum for a specific issue but not a good forum for discussion of several issues. - DMV Building Awning. Illegal awning will be reported to Code Enforcement. Trees . Palm Desert has a tree study completed. Commissioner Whitney asked if the City could get a copy for reference. Planning Director stated that he would ask the Planning Director of Palm Desert for a copy. General Plan Update Meetings. Several meetings will be scheduled for public input into the. General Plan Update process. A one-eighth page ad in the Desert Sun ran on October 10 and individual meetings will be noticed in the newspaper. Commissioners signed up for the first two meeting (October 19 in the City Council Chamber and October 24 at the Desert Highland Unity Center) . Planning Director stated that the intent is a general discussion, not specifics and mechanics of the General Plan. October 11, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 17 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:45 P.m. PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/ml PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 25, 1989 • 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1989 - 1990 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman X 8 0 Gary Olsen X 8 0 Barbara Whitney X 8 0 Brent Hough X 4 4 Martha Edgmon X 8 0 Chris Mills X 8 0 Michael Dotson X 8 0 Staff Present — Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Douglas Evans, Assistant Planning Director Debra Goodwin, Planner Sherri Abbas, Planner Dave Forcucci , Planner Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural, Advisory Committee - October 23, 1989 Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Mike Buccino William Johnson Will Kleindienst Reuel Young Tom Doczi Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Olsen/Hough; Edgmon/Mills absent) approving minutes of October 11, 1989 with the following corrections: Page 4, Paragraph 6, CASE 3.0477. Add after "designed" , "on Indian Avenue". Page 4, last paragraph, CASE 3.0477: Change "plans" to "plants" . Page 6, first paragraph, CASE 5.0522-PD-205: Add after . . ."issue at the Council " , "meeting" . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: • The October 25, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday, October 20, 1989.